Sunday, 28 October 2007

I love this video for so many reasons. It blows away the lies of the MSM and the establishment bloggers. It shows the smart youth are waking up big time. It shows the huge support Ron Paul already has and he still has a way to go yet!

Tuesday, 23 October 2007

Well, it would seem we are really leaving the ignore phase and heading deep into ridicule and attack phases now. The mainstream are now busy trying to paint Ron Paul as a "can't win" candidate, while they have now also caught up on the Internet front and are running a "Paul is nuts" campaign. Of course there are probably a number of people who really do hate Ron Paul too, such as Communists, Warmongers and the odd useful idiot who worships Fox news.

I am heartened to see that none of this is stopping the revolution though. Indeed, just as has happened in the past, these attacks are just helping fuel the fire. More and more people are asking "Who is Ron Paul?". Then, when they look him up on the Internet, or ask one of the thousands of Ron Paul activists out in the streets, they come to the same realisation as us that have already woken up and taken in a deep whiff of coffee.

The donations are increasing by the day. Meetup groups continue to form and grow and Paul supporters are now toughening up and getting that thick skin required for the battle ahead.

Make no mistake though, this is going to get much worse. Colour me unsurprised that candidates are now suddenly appearing, that attack Ron Paul's key demographics. People like Colbert suddenly decide to run, to show contempt for the whole system. Yep that would have been fine if there was no Ron Paul, but then he will have known this. Does anyone think he would have had his own show, without kissing the right arse?

It makes no odds though. While Colbert may well initially take the disenfranchised who haven't found Ron Paul yet, he won't convert anyone who already has. When the people who do back his contempt campaign, find out he is lying and that there is a choice, then they will make the right choice in the end. recognise this spoiler tactic for what it is and just focus on getting the Ron Paul message out. I have seen it happen in the U.K. too many times. Threats are attacked with numerous methods and I am certain a lot of them are not just misguided useful idiots for the establishment.

The hysterical efforts by the MSM to switch the people off Paul are almost funny at the moment. Some well placed boo boys in the crowed, or a carefully selected panel member who makes almost evil attacks on a good man. This is how desperate this scumbags are to prevent the people from daring to have freedom.

Sunday, 21 October 2007

Ron Paul's appeal grows Posted by Daniel Hannan on 18 Oct 2007 at 10:37 Tags: Internet, Republican, polls, supporters, anti-war, Ron Paul, presidential candidatePerhaps he’s not such a joke candidate after all. I blogged a while ago about my growing fondness for Ron Paul, the ultra-libertarian anti-war Republican presidential candidate. Yes, he’s still down on around 2 per cent in the polls. And, yes, he says some colourful things. But, according to the Washington Post, he’s starting to attract supporters, some of them almost fanatical in their loyalty, in New Hampshire in advance of that state’s critical primary.

Ron Paul is a man who always speaks his mind

And here’s the thing: of the $5 million so far raised by the Texas congressman, 70 per cent has come from small online donations. Ron Paul is, if you like, the Republicans’ Howard Dean: an unknown, a maverick, a man written off by the bigwigs, who somehow manages to appeal over their heads to the rest of the party. The internet truly is a wonderful device: it breaks the party monopolies and empowers the citizen as never before.

What’s the basis of the Paul’s appeal? Simply that he seems always to speak his mind. He’s like a West Wing character brought to life: Arnie Vinick, only more so. And, in an age when voters in every country are sick of mainstream politicians, his tactlessness wins him admirers. The national polls may barely register his existence, but he often emerges at or near the top among those who have watched him in the televised debates.

Alright, it’s a fantasy. Ron Paul won’t win the GOP nomination. But it’s a rather delicious fantasy, isn’t it, worth indulging in for a few moments. Just think: a 2008 election contested by a pro-war Democrat and an anti-war Republican. Whom would the poor BBC back?

This guy is a British MEP, but a good one! He wants Britain out of the corrupt EU, thus Paul's message of freedom was bound to appeal!

If all Tories were like him, they would be in power now and Britain would be free once again! Sadly they are more like Dave Cameron. Career merchants that leave a trail of slime behind them.

The MSM frantically try and keep Ron Paul out, but there are too many peoople waking up and smelling the coffee now. Expect a shift in approach soon, as they have to give Paul time, but seek other ways to discredit him. You can bet they are digging like mad looking for dirt, but they aren't going to find any.

That won't stop them though. They'll just make something up, just before the election.

To all the Americans that pass through this blog. Please supprot this campaign, it's time the revolution ramped up another few notches and this is the date for us to really start showing the world how it is done.

I'd love to support this too, but I am British, so can't. Though I will be looking to donate to a meetup group a few days before hand!

Monday, 15 October 2007

Ron Paul has brought into focus an issue invisible in the United Kingdom's political scene

MONEY .....and more specifically monetary policy.

You might consider an issue as important as our medium of exchange would figure highly in our media, on those supposedly heavyweight current affairs programmes like Money Box on Radio 4, on Newsnight .....or on that terrific comedy show Question Time!

But no! monetary policy in the UK is not on the radar screen at all. It has been consigned to some darkened corner, hidden beneath spin, media hype regarding Gordon Brown's suitability (or not) to run our country and the multitude of other distractions such as Prince William's love life or who is shagging some minor celebrity. It has come to light recently, though somewhat obtusely following desperate attemps by the worlds' central banks to contain the subprime mortgage debacle and the failure of Northern Rock....now to be underwritten by the Bank of England.....in other words...us! the taxpayer.

Every policy, every penny in tax we pay, the cost of borrowing, how we fund our public services. how we fund our military adventures in Iraq, how we will fund our retirement, EVERYTHING .....is a function of monetary policy and yet in the main, the creation of our money is an a non issue. Monetary policy doesn't see the light of day unless there is some herniation in the money markets.

Amazing!

All the more odd because the more savvy British people are not without some understanding of money. They use it to run businesses, to run the family budget, to invest....and to borrow. But strangely, very few British people understand where their money comes from, how it is created or how our banking system works. We suffer from terrible ignorance when it comes to economics, the running of our country and how our taxes are spent.

Ron Paul has dared to raise the issue of the central banking system and specifically the Federal Reserve Bank. This is absolutely unprecedented. Virtually all modern 'free market' economies are based on the central banking system, an oxymoron if ever there was one. Our so called capitalist, free market democracies operate under the Stalinist and dictatorial monetary control of the central banks which determine the cost of borrowing and hence the amount of money in our economy at any given time.

Our ignorance of our own monetary system is shocking. Ask the average punter where our money comes from or indeed, what money is!...and you will be greeted with the hollow stare of someone who has been brainwashed, obliterated by the Eastenders omnibus. Most people are blissfully ignorant regarding the origins of our money. Many people, as in America, are under the delusion that Sterling is still backed by something of real value. They might presume incorrectly that our money is backed by silver as the name suggests, or even better, gold.

But no! Sterling is backed by nothing more than CONFIDENCE. A pretty terrifying premise in an era where people will happily borrow six times their income to buy a one bedroom flat above their local crack den no? At least the dollar is backed by oil! But Sterling? What backs our money? Coal? Chickens? Liquorice Allsorts perhaps?

So what parallels are there between the Federal Reserve system and our own Bank of England? A very good question I think and speaking as someone who has tried to find out, all the more intriguing. About six months ago, I wrote a letter to the Bank of England asking them to explain who actually owns it, and in whose interests it operates. The somewhat cryptic response, not received until a good two months after my initial correspondence was, 'the Bank of England is owned by the Crown'....? Hmmmm. Not very forthcoming then. Subsequent efforts to elucidate the answer to my question through research on the internet and reading were equally inconclusive. There is one interetsing clue and that is the Bank of England website. If the Bank of England is an agency of the government or the state, you might expect the web domain to end in .gov for example, but mysteriously, the BoE has a co.uk website address. Another clue is our banknotes which have printed upon them Copyright of The Governor and 'Company' of the Bank of England. Company?????????????

So my first and most important questions regarding our own Stalinist central bank are, who owns it and in whose interest does it operate? Is it as i suspect....a private bank and if so, WHO really owns it?

I guess I'm just a very suspicious person, someone who suspects the monetary policy of the BoE and our government doesn't operate in the best interest of the people, rather like the Federal Reserve which has been strangling the American people to death since 1913. Every dollar created by the Federal Reserve has its own interest bearing debt. The current account deficit in the USA is about $9.5 trillion dollars!!! If you add in the pension and medicare entitlements of America's retiring boomer generation, this deficit is expected to swell to perhaps $60 trillion dollars. OUCH!

Back in Blighty, nowhere is evidence of foul play by the banking system more startling than the UK housing market. House prices have nearly trebled in some places in just a decade. The British people are caught up in a wave of irrational exuberence that makes our last housing boom pale by comparison. The UK housing market is the new panacea, the cure all guaranteeing economic prosperity and a secure future for all......well, for those fortunate enough to own a home that is! It is a kind of national Prozac. No longer must we work particulary hard, save money, produce goods or add real value to our economy. We can just buy houses and sell them to eachother in between watching Sarah Beeny help some hapless moron become a property entrepreneur and watching the copious television adverts for more 'cheap' loans. It is the economics of a madhouse, encouraged and cultivated by our 'prudent' Chancellor Gordon Brown and a banking system determined to lend ever more ludicrous sums of money, the repayment of which will challenge even the comparatively wealthy and well heeled middle class.

So where did all the money come from that financed this giant ponzi scheme? Yep! You guessed it! The banking system created it out of thin air. The banking system doesn't 'print' the money as such. Only a tiny percentage of our money exists as cash. No, just as in America, the vast proportion of our money comes into existence as debt and only a very small percentage of any bank loan is money actually deposited. When Northern Rock crashed and the people queued for their money, the government felt it had no option other than to bail them out. The money deposited by Northern Rock's customers was all lent out to create new loans after all. The honey pot was empty! Most bank credit is literally created by the click of a mouse button. The banking system 'loans' money into existence and earns interest on it! Wow!What a business!!!!!!! There is virtually no debt free money in our economy and this is why a credit crunch is so catastrophic in a debt based economy. As soon as banks stop creating credit, the money in our economy disappears like water running down a plug hole, economic activity grinds to a halt, jobs are lost, companies go bust and people cannot pay their mortgages anymore. All the excess liquidity in the economy is sucked away and the economy stagnates until equillibrium is restored and banks can repeat the process all over again. Thus we live in an age of rollercoaster economics. The banking system alternates beween a shrinking and then expanding money supply. House prices go up........ And then they come down again. DOH! Borrow money at the wrong time in this insane cycle and you risk consigning yourself to debt slavery for the rest of your life....or just fiscal oblivion. It's morally repugnant and frankly, insane.

Except...... this time things may pan out differently, and potentially even more catastrophically than before. The seeds of this new paradigm in debt insanity are labyrinth. They include the relaxation of banking regulations, the securitization of debt and the refusal of the central banks to control inflation. The money supply, a measure of inflation that has fallen out of favour in our ponzi economies, is growing alarmingly. Both the US and UK governments use the CPI as their main measure of inflation. While governments on both sides of the Atlantic quote an inflation rate in the region of 3%, our money supply, much of which is new bank credit, is growing at 13-14% per annum. That is a lot of extra money!. GDP growth is around 2.6% in the UK. This is a clear sign that the real rate of inflation is closer to 10%, much greater even than the figure quoted in the more conservative RPI.

This might all sound rather academic and complicated, but if you're a young person trying to buy your first home or a pensioner living on a fixed income, the reality of the situation is clear. Inflation is particularly tough for young people and those looking for a first home because inflation has manifested itself, not so much in consumer goods as is more traditional, but in astronomically high property prices. The price of property has been driven to insane levels by the avalability of bucket loads of cheap credit. Meanwhile, the spending power of our young people has been decimated. Not only are they priced out of the property market, they are forced to take on ever greater levels of debt to pay for higher education and living costs. Pensioners are hit hard too. Fuel costs, the Council Tax, even food prices are beginning to rise.

The big question now is which way things will go. Will we see the banking system reign in the creation of new debt or will the contnued growth in money supply precipitate much higher inflation? Either way, the thing that has held the UK economy together for the last decade, the housing market, will suffer. Either prices will fall substantially, or inflation will erode the paper profits people have made in the property market. If NuLabour's grand experiment in economic prosperity funded by debt should implode and I suspect it will, maybe we too will be ready for a British version of Ron Paul. I sincerely hope so because I have lost faith in all the political and financial institutions we give the responsibility of running our economy.

And then there are all the issues of liberty, freedom, civil rights espoused by Ron paul.....but I'll save that for another evening.

RENO, Nev., Oct. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Republican presidentialcandidate Ron Paul has won the inaugural Conservative Leadership Conferencestraw poll. Despite not appearing at the conference, Paul won convincinglywith 33% of the vote. Mitt Romney, who addressed the conference in a townhall meeting and during a general session, finished second with 16%. DuncanHunter, who also delivered a major address during the three-day event,finished third at 15%.Full results are available at http://www.politicalderby.comThe poll was sponsored by PoliticalDerby.com and 411Communications. Itwas executed onsite by Jason Wright and Stephen Fountain ofPoliticalDerby.com.

That's right. Paul can't be at every event, he is just one man, but he still handed Rudy McRomney's arse to him on a plate! Romney even put some effort into this one and still came off second. It doesn't matter how much of his own money he throws at it, the power of REAL support is beginning to shine through.

Of course you won't hear any of this news on the BBC or Fox, but then what do you expect from two thoroughly discredited "news" organisations.

Indeed, after our meetup group event the other day, people in England are beginning to ask :

Saturday, 13 October 2007

One of the most frequently highlighted plus points about Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul is the fact that he's been married to his wife Carol for about 50 years. They have 5 children and 17 grandchildren.

Why do employers (including voters) assume that a long marriage and stable family life are good traits in a candidate? Simple! They show him (in this case) to be a man of his word. They indicate that he's likely to make careful decisions, and to carefully make those decisions work if at all possible.

So far so good, but how can we replicate that kind of behaviour? Dr. Paul certainly knows. Lead by open example, and use words to explain when necessary. Trustworthiness, as he'd be the first to agree, is the result of accepting and living out internally consistent moral standards in a consistent fashion.

What a pity that here in the UK, talk of the importance of marriage in public life is dominated by calls for some way to subsidise marriage through the tax system Money can't buy loyalty; it can only rent it. This is why Dr. Paul avoids supporting subsidies for married couples (with or without children). The state can't buy personal loyalty between individuals, and shouldn't try to do so – especially when that money must be awarded to families at the expense of the unmarried (whether single or not).

In truth, if the state really wants to strengthen the institution of marriage in society, it need only subtract itself from every aspect of subsidising children, be it conception, contraception, abortion, birth or education. This is the only financial way to reward marriage without violating the earning and property rights of the unmarried.

Subsidising marriage only encourages more of the wrong people to get married (the right ones don't bother about subsidies; they just get married anyway). Perversely, this involves the state in creating more divorces and separations – the multiplication of division in society; and as truly enlightened social policy goals go, that one really doesn't add up.

Ron points out that printing more money is always an act of counterfeiting and theft. It takes buying power away from existing savers and puts it in the hands of the first politically connected bankers to get their mitts (or perhaps romneys?) on the new money... preferably before anyone else even knows the stuff has been created!

This gives the politicians' favourite bankers the chance to buy at today's prices with tomorrow's money. And why would banks buy stuff outright which they don't much need or understand (e.g. houses, businesses, collectables) when they can simply lend the money out at a premium for years on end to other people?

Mortgages are a special favourite of the banks for several reasons: most of the money borrowed never needs to physically exist, lots of people can qualify, the debt usually runs for years on end, the loan is secured against a (hopefully) resaleable asset in the event of the borrower defaulting, and economically illiterate politicians can easily be sold on the idea that lending is almost always “socially responsible” and “empowering”.

Did I mention the voters love it because it's also one of the last ways left for British taxpayers to make large, comparatively tax-light capital gains? The problem is that as more fiat money moves through the economy, money holders (inc. borrowers) bid up prices for the goods and services they want - hence the housing bubble(s).

So what's Ron's solution? Scrap the central bank, ditch the income tax, drop the US Empire to balance the books, and bring back the gold standard. Then ,the Federal government could no longer just print its way out of debt... no income tax would mean no automatic deductions at source in many cases (and a frank admission by government that money really belongs to those who earn it rather than those who merely print it). Finally, the gold standard would also act as a good brake on inflation because really big strikes are very few and far between.

Now compare the good doctor's prescription to the UK's old hat media on sub-prime mortgages, debt instruments and a “liquidity crisis” (e.g. not enough in the petty cash at Northern Rock). Here, all the chattering classes can do is gab about whether Mervyn King should've inflated the British Pound away faster and further.

Since when was a lending crisis solved by more lending?

If there's a British Ron Paul in the audience, please stand up – the UK needs you so badly!

Monday, 8 October 2007

There is more great news for the Ron Paul campaign, not just the money he raised in the third quarter but also that this is starting to translate into real life support. Among moderates in New Hampshire, Ron Paul is in the double digits. The sample size of moderates in this poll is only 203 but is as high as some of the University polls that are reported widely in the media.

The ball is now well and truly rolling. Lets keep it going until victory!

You might have noticed a chipin appear on the right of this blog. We here at Brits4RonPaul are now going to ally oursleves to this grassroots effort. I have just kicked off the donations with $100. Please, if you enjoy reading this blog and want to help a great bunch of guys help Ron Paul, please donate what you can, when you can.

The first project is to get Billboard space at a very busy junction at the heart of Bush country.

When Ron Paul does win, the career minded will probably all jump over and pretend they supported Paul.

SORRY, not good enough. History will judge the yes men of the media in a harsh light. Speak up now and prove you believe in freedom. Otherwise, don't expect the people to tollerate your arse kissing compliance in the future.

Saturday, 6 October 2007

Many articles enjoy telling you Ron Paul cannot win the election, for this or that reason, and 1001 others. Much can be said to question the method or the importance of some of these factors. One can think of the value of telephonic polling in a society where many do not use landlines anymore, the aggressive questions and replies Ron Paul receives during debates and interviews, as well as the relative silence on Ron Paul in mainstream media coverage of the candidates, and many, many more. However, since you are probably familiar with most of them, let us, for the sake of balance, explore a few reasons why he could surprise friends and foes alike and perform well.

Campaign fundsIn the last week of the quarter alone (week between September 24 and September 30 2007), he raised a little over $1.22 Million from 14,000 online donations only, more than all of the Democrats except Obama and Hillary, and likely more than any of the other Republican candidates. Ron Paul raised more than $3 million in the whole third quarter, up from $2.4 million in the second quarter and $641,000 in the first three months of the year. A clear rising trend is visible here.

Internet traffic

The website Hitwise, which monitors US internet traffic for commercial purposes, has a section on the US Presidential race. Besides having elected Ron Paul as candidate of the month, and having dedicated a short document to him which is quite interesting to read, there are many other interesting facts to be found. First of all, the section titled “Top Republican Candidate 2008 Websites” lists websites for the Republican candidates of 2008 Presidential elections based on US Internet usage for the week between September 15 and September 22, put Ron Paul on top with 29.52%, slightly over Fred Thompson with 26.21% and far above the other candidates (Giuliani 9.08% and Romney 6.99%).

Yet another section of the website, titled “Top 10 Presidential Candidate 2008 Search Terms”, shows the most used candidate related terms listed ranked by volume of searches that successfully drove traffic to websites in the Hitwise Politics - President - All Candidates category between August 22 and September 22, 2007, based on US Internet usage. If one adds the percentages shown after the terms “Ron Paul” to those appearing after “Ron Paul 2008” the total is 9.44% and makes him again rank first. Fred Thompson is still rather close (7.79%) whilst after Biden (Democrat with 5.03%) who comes third the rest falls behind considerably. Interestingly enough, neither Giuliani nor McCain are in the top ten, which means their volume is less than the lowest value, 1.59%.

Another internet factor which constitutes and fuels a significant portion of Ron Paul’s support is the meet up facilitating website meetup.com, which has, as of October 2, some 50.000 members worldwide, with about 950 groups and some 7.650 meetings held. YouTube, the video sharing site, as of October 2, returns more than 31.000 videos on “Ron Paul” and Ron Paul’s YouTube channel has some 29.500 subscribers and almost 4.4 million hits. It is vital to delve more into comparing Ron Paul and other candidates in YouTube performance, which is important as it shows videos by candidates’ enthusiasts, TV and radio interviews, debate clips, official campaign messages and much more. This means this channel filled with information and discussion represents one of the clearest manifestations of what many do to explore candidates by themselves, out of the control and steering by mainstream media outlets. Also, the fact that YouTube has and will partner with some of the actual debates made the link of YouTube and political awakening much stronger. So, here we go, as of October 2 candidates have so many videos (v), subscriptions (s) and hits (h): John McCain about 2.250v, 1.600s and 480.000h; Mitt Romney about 2.460v, 3.000s and 780.000h; Rudy Giuliani about 2.300v, 2.500s and 655.000h; Fred Thompson 1.300v, 1.600s and 88.000h combined*; Barack Obama 6.000v, 11.200s and 11.300.000h; Hillary Clinton 9.240v, 6.100s and 930.000h and John Edwards 5.300v, 4.200s and 630.000h. Ron Paul clearly then towers above his opponents in both party. Only on one piece of data does he have to concede to Obama, those 11 million hits. Still, I cannot stop to feel they are inflated, maybe because of the fact that Obama’s page has 200 own videos whilst Paul’s page has only 51, but many more self-made ones by his supporters (and those probably do not count towards the total hits on the YouTube channel of the respectful candidate).

Wikipedia is also a major factor to take into account. At this time during the run up to the last presidential election, the website was in its infancy. In July of 2003, the online encyclopedia attracted less than half a million US visitors. In July of 2007 it was over 41 million people, or 1 in 4 people online in the US. Wikipedia is now the 12th most visited website and is likely to play a significant role in informing and influencing those who will choose our next president. Using the tables provided on the Compete.com website, which provides information on every site on the Internet including site traffic history and competitive analytics, some remarkable results surface. It must be said that the statistics are from July, which means that now, the more the primaries approach, it is likely that the amount of views will be much higher, and some of the other factors may change as well. Here are the results for the top five candidates respectively, unique views of the web pages of the candidates (v), the average amount of time in minutes spent on the page (t), the overall Wikipedia users’ share dedicated to this candidate(s) and the percentage of those who also visited the candidate’s campaign web site(c):

Finally, MySpace, Technorati and Facebook also show scores of Ron Paul supporters. Doubtlessly there are more support channels which escape my attention. Nonetheless, these results combined set Ron Paul way ahead of other candidates in internet as well as meet up popularity.

Straw polls

Another important factor is the straw polls. Not all of them involve significant numbers of people, but by having many of these straw polls and taking an average some relevant conclusions can still be drawn using the table provided on the Ron Paul website. It was updated up to the most recent September 30 straw poll in Georgia. On a total of 29 straw polls, Ron Paul’s average ranking was 2.31 and his average percentage of votes was 29.97 %, quite impressive values. This resulted in 13 wins, 5 second and 5 third spots. However, as I noticed he seems to perform better the more recent the polls are, I recalculated the totals to pitch July, August and September against one another. The results could give us a good projection of future straw polls and overall popularity of the Ron Paul campaign on the ground. July, with only 4 straw polls, returned an average ranking of 2.25 and an average percentage of votes of 28.05%. August, with 14 straw polls, returned an average ranking of 2.5 and an average percentage of votes of 30.42%. September, with 9 straw polls, returned an average ranking of 2.1 and an average percentage of votes of 34.33%. In conclusion, there seems to be a light increase in performance, and it remains overall quite strong for a candidate at the margins of mainstream media.

Mainstream media

It seems Ron Paul is riding the wave of recognition by countless internet users turning this popularity into more “tangible” mainstream attention. Until recently, he was mostly silenced to death in mainstream media besides during the debates and a few interviews, in most of which he has been quite strongly, and often unfairly, attacked. Since the last week of September however, Forbes, USA Daily, MSNBC, The Boston Globe, Yahoo! News, CBS News, Baltimore Sun have written about him. More surprisingly, the tone of most articles was neutral or appreciative towards him and his campaign, with the notable exception of the Yahoo! News story. This obviously needs to expand rapidly for Ron Paul if he is to get more support easily. The longer this relative silence will last, the more efforts Ron Paul and his campaign will have to put into getting his name out. So far, it has worked rather well nonetheless.

Gallup poll

A poll taken in July shows that 58% of US citizens think both parties are doing such a bad job that a third one is needed. What does this mean? Most probably the same as when Americans in 2006 overwhelmingly installed a Democratic Congress: “Get out of Iraq”, as well as probable general dissatisfaction with the federal government, as consistent low approval ratings of Bush indicate. The message resonating seems to be one a genuine and heartfelt wish for a refreshing style of politics, something out of the box, “out of the parties” and recent political trends.

Conclusion

How many choices made out of fear or between a lesser of two evils have had negative consequences, especially pitched against choices we wholeheartedly supported and inspired us beyond the normal? Examining that for our own lives will certainly result in many sad and disillusioned faces. It is not necessary. “Experts” say Ron Paul can’t win. Experts once said the world was flat. Experts once held that it was impossible to split atoms. Experts once said it was impossible for humans to ever fly. While it is too cheap to dismiss people as “evil”, believing many if not most of these experts had genuine concerns and objections, it is good to question why experts make certain claims. Usually you will find that it is simply easier to live in the status quo for those who comfortably live it, simply that. By the same toke, those who wish to change a status quo are not always “good”. That is why it is important to let our enquiring and curious human nature do its thing: experiment, learn and adapt.

Imagine if above beliefs had never been questioned. What kind of world would we live in today? Those who challenged these and others were and are sadly still deemed as lunatics, unpatriotic, idiots, spineless, conspiracy-nuts, nutjobs, morons and what more. Only after a long and painful process are their claims sometimes, often too late or never, restored to justice. This process is captured rather brilliantly in the following quote by German philosopher Schopenhauer who holds that

All truth passes through three stages:First, it is ridiculed.Second, it is violently opposed.Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

If Ron Paul is to make a serious chance and you believe in his message, he needs your help to get at stage three quickly.

Finally, remember to be careful of what others tell you to think, including the present author, search for the possible reason behind the message being told. I therefore should state mine, which is simply to communicate a vision of hope, liberty, freedom, responsibility and maturity that longs for a warm embrace.

I believe that this is embodied by a sane, inspirational and positive vision Ron Paul has for America and, indirectly, for the world. Should we embrace it?

* Fred Thompson seems to have 2 official channels. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I added both totals.

The author can be seen on YouTube in 6 videos addressing aspects of Ron Paul’s message and campaign. Also, the author can be reached at maranelloboy@gmail.com

Alexa, a website information page, ranks YouTube as the 4th most visited English language website as well as 4th in the top 500 US web pages. YouTube received, according to the website TrafficEstimate, some 199.900.000 hits over the last 30 days alone. By contrast, google.com received 332.000.000 hits over that same period of time, Yahoo! 551.545.000, MySpace 148.554.000 and Facebook 120.370.000. In other words, YouTube is a serious hit. Certainly, it is mostly young people who use it and many of its videos are not at all about politics, but is forms a decisive factor nonetheless. It is vital to delve more into comparing the candidates in YouTube performance, because the video channel shows videos by candidates’ enthusiasts, TV and radio interviews, debate clips, official campaign messages and much more. This means this channel filled with information and discussion represents one of the clearest manifestations of what many do to explore candidates by themselves, out of the control and steering by mainstream media outlets. Additionally, YouTube has a special section of its website dedicated to the 2008 candidates accessible from the home page, which will likely increase the percentage of surfers on YouTube that will take a glance at the candidates. Also, the fact that YouTube has and will partner with some of the actual debates on TV made the link of YouTube and political awakening much stronger and will provide for a steady increase in 2008 Presidential election material on the website.

Now we have established that support from YouTubers is a rather decisive factor in the success of any campaign, the most important question stemming from this is: which of the candidates enjoys most popularity of YouTube?

Methodology of this research

• I have selected the 5 candidates with most YouTube channel views. • The videos included in this overview are those by the candidates’ campaign, those made by YouTube users themselves, reproductions and remixes of TV and radio debates as well as interviews addressing the candidate in question specifically etc. • The videos excluded from this overview are those which have nothing to do with the candidate but were tagged as such, those which clearly and unfairly attempt at ridiculing or discrediting the candidate in question and videos such as Obama girl, Giuliani girl and Paul girl, which are not about politics.

• What is left after this screening is a number of videos of which I have taken the 50 most watched per candidate to compile the total number of views.

Please verify my selections for yourself to see how well or not I filtered the videos according to above search criteria. You can do this simply by inserting the below given names of videos in the search engine of YouTube or by typing the full name of the candidate in the search engine and subsequently sorting the videos by popularity.

The results given by YouTube for candidates’ channels’ views are approximately as follows as of October 2, 2007:

Selecting the top 5 candidates, we are left with Ron Paul, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani. Why not Mike Gravel, he has the 5th highest amount of views? Well, Giuliani keeps being promoted by the media as the GOP frontrunner, so he really needs to be included in this overview to stand the test of reality. We all know Gravel does not need a test of reality, he is as real and frank as they get. In an update of this article which I will write soon, I promise ALL candidates will be included. My sincere apologies for now to Mike Gravel and his fans.

You Choose ’08 Spotlight: Rudy on his 12 Commitments (360.000); Giuliani on Public Funding of Abortion (170.000); Rudy Defends Tax-Cut Claims (62.000); Rudy Giuliani on Non-Binding Resolutions (50.000); Rudy Giuliani Responds to Ron Paul (34.000); Rudy Giuliani on 9/11 Rescue Workers (25.000); Giuliani on Public Funding of Abortion (25.000); A Proven Record (18.000); Judith Giuliani at New York City Fundraiser (16.000); Rudy Giuliani announces law suit against gun companies (15.000); Giuliani on abortion (13.000); Giuliani “We Need to Train US Military to Nation Build” (13.000); Rudy on Lowering Taxes: Part 1 (13.000); Rudy Giuliani on Gun Control and NRA (12.000); Rudy Giuliani on Immigration: To end of not to end? (8.500); Rudy: American Foreign Policy (8.500); Rudy Speaks at Houston Baptist University (8.000); Rudy Giuliani at NRA conference (8.000); Rudy: I usually hear the Democrats blaming the US for 9/11 (7.500); Giuliani on Gun Control (7.000)

TOTAL = 844.000 views total / 42.200 views per video average

Conclusion is that Ron Paul, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are on top of the others. Notably though, Ron Paul’s real number is much higher. This because he has by far more grass-roots support than any other candidate, and that shows in the thousands of enthusiasts’ videos on YouTube more he has over other candidates and which, because of their non-top-20 ranking, do not feature in the presented overview.

The Ron Paul revolution is here! Brace yourself, we are in for a rollercoaster ride on a gigantic snowball approaching the White House.

The author can be reached both on YouTube http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=maranelloboy as well as on maranelloboy (at) gmail.com for comments